I's also add that the urge to simply control other people is pretty much part of the human condition, and controlling someone sexually is part of that, and both the general conrol and the specific sexual control is easier when the one controlled is a young child and the one doing the controlling is an adult.
I see what you are saying, but I am pointing out that "control" just like a couple other issues you have mentioned ("consent" and "potential for harm") are not really the underlying rules for yoru judgement, if they were then you'd end up striking more than the issues which you are against. And as I am trying to point out as well, antigay advocates can help themselves to the exact same arguments.
Your problems are:
1) You view it as necessary to be protected from sexual acts in general, unless they are legitimated by very culturally defined roles. Or maybe I should say that you start with the understanding that culturally defined roles for sexual acts are what are necessary for protection.
2) Your only deviations from traditional prosciptions are one popular one (miscegenation) and one increasingly popular one (homosexuality), which youu have suggested is popular in your area.
3) You hold the traditional bigoted positions on the remaining ones with just as tight a grip as those who hold the others, without looking into the evidence which would link them (for good or bad). If you did you would discover that you'd have to become more flexible or more rigid than you are now.
That is an observation, but I don't want to get bogged down in arguing them. Just keep it in ming that it is why I think your rules tend to fall apart on inspection (and it appears you have recognized at least one area where the rules are not matching).
Since you claim "control" is the issue, let me attack that as a primary example, and I will attempt to avoid bringing in stickier issues like child sex, which seem more problematic to you.
As you state above controlling others is a part of human existence. With that I have absolutely no argument. In almost all interactions someone will submit and someone will take charge or impress (I think "dominate" is a little strong) their desires. That is the basis for learning social skills such that societal action is possible.
I would argue that you do not find "loss of control" important in any other situation except sex with minors, and are willing to deny control is important for minors, when it does not involve sex, and even if it means a potential problem for the child, as long as it supports something you like. Here is a hypothetical:
You have children and for some reason your husband is already dead, and you are dying. Thus the future welfare of your kids is at stake. For convenient reasons you have only three choices of families who you can give your kids to. You don't know anything else about them except they have enough money to raise the children, and the following...
1) A heterosexual couple.
2) A polygamous family (nonmormon to remove religious issues).
3) A homosexual couple.
Instead of guessing here what you would do, and arguing against it, let me explain what I would say and why it is the best option.
Personally I would want my kids to go with the heterosexual couple, and neither 2 or 3. The reason is that all financial things being equal, the child is most likely to get more experiences of nurture (exposure to different sexes as role models), as well as not having to face the legal and social problems the other two will face.
Now I wouldn't tear my hair out if either of the others were chosen, I suppose I'd prefer 2 over 3 in that polygamists usually have less problems with watching the kids, but the question is what would I prefer? Which do I actually believe would provide the BEST environment for my kids?
I do not believe it is possible to decide otherwise, at least not being consistent, unless you decide to run "what if" scenarios rather than "what is".
And that is one major problem for gays trying to get children. It really is not the best solution for a child, and the state may have a right to preclude that, given the potential problems involved. It is sort of a vicious circle, but the very one you endorsed earlier... society needs to improve to lessen the potential problems, but it is unlikely to improve unless children are first allowed to face the problems. Your vote was for not changing.
What would you choose, and if not for the homosexual couple, then why should the state allow it? If the homosexual couple, or you view it as equal, does that not require you to accept a "what if" and deny the reality of what the children will face in the society and laws we have now?
In any case, there are further problems and the antigay advocates do push this angle and that is related directly to control. In this hypothetical we are discussing a loss of control for the children. Such a decision, though important and with long lasting impact, will always be made by others and so control is not in the hands of teh children.
Currently the state is attempting, even if failing, to find the best solution for children to be adopted. Many say the state should recognize the deficiencies that will exist in a homosexual household as limiting for the child and as it is, the child might not want to belong to such a household. To say argue that gays should be allowed to adopt kids, is to patently say they should be able to coerce and control kids, not for the interests of the kids, but for the emotional desires of the gays to feel like they have a family. By placing kids in a gay home they are introduced to problems that would not exist in a hetero home.
Yes, gays can claim that you will find all the same problems in a gay home as in a straight home, but that is not the end of the story, you will find additional problems in a gay home. You will force a child to deal with issues they may not want to deal with or are ready to deal with.
And in a way the gays already admit this. One of the big rallying cries on the issue of nature vs nurture, gay activists argue with all the problems they face as compared to heterosexuals, WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE GAY? If that is true, and this is a claim made by gays, why would anyone choose to live with gays where there will be so many more problems, if they didn't have to?
In the end gay adoption is about controlling the choice of kids to further a political and social agenda, over the choice of the children, placing them into households which are not the norm (not even 10%), and do face increased problems that the majority do not face.
So if control is important, especially with important choices, it seems you would have to deny gays and gay supporters from controlling children and forcing them into situations which would not be for the best... at least not at this time.
I hope you see that this is a logical problem you are facing. As a heads up, after this will come issues of sex with the mentally handicapped and elderly. You might want to start thinking about this in context with the current issue.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-04-2005 06:50 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
